The Book of Mormon and the King James Version

Introduction

The King James Version of the Bible is, in all likelihood, the
most successful of all the English translations. Volumes have
been written on its distinctive and rhythmic style, and it is
still regarded as a triumph of modern English literature.

So great was the influence of the King James Version that it
coloured and directed the development of the English language for
decades. English speakers still uses such phrases as `a fly in
the ointment', `go the extra mile', `stick to the straight and
narrow', often without realising that they are quoting the King
James Version.

For many people, the King James Version was the Bible,
to the point that God is still often represented as speaking
Jacobean English. The English of the King James Version, even
when it had become archaic, was still identified with the
language of scripture in the minds of many of its readers. It
comes as no surprise, therefore, that when Joseph Smith produced
his sequel to the Bible, he cast it in Jacobean English. The
dependence of the Book of Mormon on the King James Version,
however, goes deeper than a mere affectation of style. Smith
copied vast quantities of the Bible into the Book of Mormon, and
the Bible that he used was the King James Version. We find,
therefore, that the King James Version left an indelible mark on
the Book of Mormon.

Affected Style

The most readily observed characteristic of the Book of Mormon
is its affected Jacobean style. Being raised, as he was, in a
Protestant household, Smith was very familiar with the cadences
and flow of Jacobean English. He was, however, quite ignorant as
to the actual grammar of the language. As a result, the prose is
couched in a sort of fractured amalgam of New England tongue and
Jacobean English. For readers who are very familiar with the King
James Version, the differences in style between the native Book
of Mormon text and the protracted interpolated Biblical passages
are so striking as to be almost physically perceived.

Most English people are unaware that King James English is
more than a few simple `thees' and `thous' in the right places.
The archaic words are actually part of the grammar, and indicate
verb tenses and noun cases and number. For example, `thou' is the
second person, singular, personal pronoun, while `ye' is the
corresponding plural form. In addition, the second person
personal pronoun is declined differently to its modern
counterpart. Thus, `ye' or `thou' is used as the subject of a
sentence, while `you' is used as the object of a sentence. Modern
English has lost this distinction, using `you' for both the
singular and plural forms of the word, as well as both noun
cases. This distinction is subtle, and is not generally
apprehended by the casual modern reader.

One can find numerous examples of inconsistent application of
the Jacobean personal noun case in the Book of Mormon. For
example, in Mosiah 4:22,
the personal noun case switches from plural to singular in the
same sentence `...and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of
the thing which thou hast done.' Technically, the last part
of the sentence should read `...which ye have done'.

Note one more example, that of First Nephi 11:7`...after
thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father
tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven,
and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye
shall bear record that it is the Son of God.'

The King James verb tenses also seemed to give Smith some
trouble. Like the languages that it evolved from, in particular
Latin and Saxon, Jacobean English used inflected word modifiers
to conjugate verbs. Again, this distinction has largely been lost
in modern English. Traces of this confusion are evident in the
first edition of the Book of Mormon. For example, in First Nephi 12:9 the third person
form of a verb is used with a second person subject `...Thou
remembereth the twelve apostles of the Lamb?...'. Compare
this with John 16:21 of the King James Version, where the third
person form of `remember' is used correctly `...but as soon as
she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the
anguish...'. This verse was corrected to read `rememberest'
in the later revisions of
the Book of Mormon.

The implication of this is clear - Joseph Smith was familiar
with the form, but not the substance, of King James English.
Consequently, his prose displays a fundamental lack of
understanding of the syntax and grammar of the tongue

Although a work of great literature, the King James Version
does suffer somewhat in accuracy. There are basically three forms
of translation errors that need to be considered.

Variant Readings. While not strictly a translation problem, it
can be shown that where the King James Version differs from the
Minority Text of the Greek New Testament, the Book of Mormon
usually follows. This will be considered later.

Technical Terms. This is one of the greatest problems of the
King James Version, although not really the fault of the
translators. Generally, the use of incorrect words for some terms
can be blamed on a less than perfect understanding of Hebrew
vocabulary during the Elizabethan era. This, too, will be
considered later.

Translation Errors. Although few in number, the King James
Version does contain a number of undeniable incorrect
translations. Again, this can sometimes be blamed on an imperfect
understanding of Hebrew, but is also possibly due to the fact
that the Authorised Version was basically translated by
committee, with the various members having different strengths
and weaknesses in the original languages. Generally, we find that
when the King James Version commits a translation error, the Book
of Mormon usually follows. Three examples will suffice.

II Nephi 12:16, a
quotation from Isaiah 2:16 reads as follows `And upon all the
ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish, and upon
all pleasant pictures.' The problem here is that the word
`pictures' should be translated as `ships', which makes more
sense. The New International version reads `..and every
stately vessel...'.

As an aside, this verse adds the phrase `upon all the ships of
the sea' to the King James Wording. Mormon scholars have often
pointed out that this follows the Septuagint, and should thus be
considered a more ancient reading of the Biblical text. In fact,
this is not entirely true. Neither the Septuagint nor the
Masoretic text have both phrases; they include either one or the
other. A close examination of the text will reveal the reason for
this. Isaiah 2:16 is part of a poetic section which employs a
device known as a rhyming couplet. Each stanza of the poem
consists of two complimentary phrases. The Book of Mormon,
however, has three phrases at this section, and thus could never
have been an original part of the text. The obvious conclusion is
that Smith had access to a Septuagint translation, or, more
likely, to a commentary on Isaiah that included the Septuagint
reading.

A more serious translation error affects Isaiah 9:1, copied
into the Book of Mormon as II
Nephi 19:1`...and afterwards did more grievously afflict
by the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the
nations.' A translation error in this verse of Isaiah has
given the text almost the opposite meaning to the original. The
phrase `did more grievously afflict' should be rendered as
`honour' in English. Thus the New International Version reads `...In
the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...'.

Again, as an aside, the Book of Mormon adds the qualifier
`Red' to the King James Version. A glance at a map of Palestine
will show why this rendering is impossible. The Red Sea is
located on the Southern border of Palestine, over 250 miles from
the Sea of Galilee.

A third example is found in II Nephi 21:3, a quotation
from Isaiah 11:3. The phrase `And shall make him of quick
understanding in the fear of the Lord...' should read `...and
he will delight in the fear of the LORD...' as in the New
International Version. Here, the Hebrew word `rawah', in this
context, is correctly translated `delight in' as opposed to
`quick'.

Mention should be made of II
Nephi 16:2, where the 1830 version follows the King James'
incorrect usage of the word `seraphims' as a plural for
`seraphim'. This was corrected in later versions of the Book of
Mormon text, although it has never been corrected in the King
James Version.

Whenever the King James translators added a clarifying word or
phrase to the text, they placed the phrase in italics to
distinguish it from the original. Joseph Smith was obviously
aware of this fact, and the majority of his changes to the
Biblical text occur as modified or dropped King James italic
phrases. However, this process is inconsistently applied in the
Book of Mormon text. Often, we find that a King James clarifying
phrase has been left intact in the copied text, even though the
phrase was never a part of the original Biblical text.

As an example, III Nephi
24:5, quoting Malachi 3:5 reads `...and that turn aside
the stranger, and fear not me...'. The King James Text reads `...and
that turn aside the stranger from his right,
and fear not me...'. The Book of Mormon omits the phrase
`from his right', which was added to the Isaiah text in italics
by the King James translators. However, in III Nephi 24:10, the
phrase `...that there shall not be room enough to receive
it...' follows the King James Version, even though seven of
these words are not original to the text. The King James Version
of Malachi 3:10 reads `...that there shall
not be room enough to receive
it...'.

Archaisms

Just as Smith's divine inspiration was unable to inform him
when he was copying a translation error, it seemed equally unable
to update some of the archaic language of the King James Version.
As previously noted, the Authorised Version had some trouble with
Hebrew technical terms. This is very apparent with animal names.
The King James Version often refers to `dragons', `unicorns' and
`satyrs', all mythological beasts. This had led more than a few
would-be Bible interpreters into interesting, but nonetheless
entirely incorrect directions.

The fact is that these names were interpolated whenever the
actual animal referred to was unclear or unknown. Later research
has uncovered the truth behind the Hebrew names, and most modern
English Bibles no longer refer to such interesting creatures. II Nephi 23:22 contains a
reference to dragons. `And the wild beasts of the islands
shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant
palaces...'. This is a quotation from Isaiah 13:22. Most
modern translations have `jackals' for `dragons', and `hyenas'
for `wild beasts'.

Verse 21 of the same
chapter has a reference to satyrs. `But wild beasts of the
desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful
creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance
there.' This word is translated `wild goats' in most modern
translations.

King James archaisms are not limited to animal names. It seems
that articles of apparel also caused their share of problems for
the translators. A protracted quotation from Isaiah perfectly
illustrates this problem. II
Nephi 13:18-23 reads `In that day the Lord will take away
the bravery of their tinkling ornaments, and cauls, and round
tires like the moon; The chains and the bracelets, and the
mufflers; The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the
headbands, and the tablets, and the ear-rings; The rings, and
nose jewels; The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles,
and the wimples, and the crisping-pins; The glasses, and the fine
linen, and hoods, and the veils.'

This is a quotation from Isaiah 3:18-23. Although these terms
are, for the most part, correctly translated in the King James
Version, it is almost certain that neither Joseph Smith nor his
intended audience had any idea what they meant. The King James
Version committee translated this passage using words from their
own era, which reflected the fashion of the day. Two hundred
years later, in the early nineteenth century, on a different
continent, these words were mostly obsolete. The New
International Version throws some light on the issue `In that
day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and
headbands and crescent necklaces, the earrings and bracelets and
veils, the headdresses and ankle chains and sashes, the perfume
bottles and charms, the signet rings and nose rings, the fine
robes and the capes and cloaks, the purses and mirrors, and the
linen garments and tiaras and shawls.'

In at least two other places, Smith's divine muse was unable
to supply him with the answers to some textual questions that had
vexed Biblical scholars for centuries. The first is found in II Nephi 28:30. `...I
will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon
precept, here a little and there a little...' This is a
reference to Isaiah 28:13. `But the word of the Lord was unto
them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line,
line upon line; here a little, and there a little...'
Although most English Bibles follow the King James version to
some degree, the exact meaning of the Hebrew text is uncertain.
Most scholars are of the opinion that they are nonsense words,
similar to an English person using the words `blah, blah, blah'.

A similar problem afflicts III Nephi 12:22, a
quotation from Matthew 5:22. `...And whosoever shall say to
his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council...' The
exact meaning of the Aramaic word `Raca' is unknown, although it
is generally thought to denote a term of contempt. The King James
translators left the word untranslated, as do most English
Bibles. It is indeed unfortunate that Smith's divine pipeline was
unable to provide him with the true meaning of the word.

A final example will suffice. There is at least one archaic
spelling that confused Smith, and that was the word `strait'.
This word is used in Matthew 7:14 in the familiar phrase `...strait
is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it.' Joseph Smith evidently thought,
as do most English readers, that `strait' is simply a variant
spelling of `straight'. In fact, it is not. The word `strait', in
this context, means `restricted' or `difficult'. Nevertheless,
the first edition of the Book of Mormon uses the word `straight'
when it quotes Matthew in III
Nephi 14:14. In fact, the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon
uses the word `straight' every time that `strait' is meant. (See,
for example, I Nephi 21:20,
where the King James Version of Isaiah 49:20 has `strait'. The
word `straight' makes no sense in this context.) Most of these
were corrected in subsequent versions.

This is telling indeed, for it is evident that only an English
person would confuse the two words. A Nephite, who had no
knowledge of English, would certainly not make that mistake. In
spite of this, we find that at least one of the Book of Mormon
characters displayed similar confusion about the word. In II Nephi 9:41, the prophet
Nephi speaks these words `...Behold, the way for man is
narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him...'. It
is quite certain that Smith was alluding to the King James
version here. Not only does the word `gate' appear in the same
sentence, but we also find the phrase `And then are ye in this
strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life...' in II Nephi 31:18. When Smith
revised the Book of Mormon, he corrected the spelling of II Nephi
31:18 to `strait', but was obviously unable to change II Nephi
9:41, since the context makes it clear that the word `straight'
is meant.

To summarise the foregoing: the Book of Mormon is evidently
unable to update the archaic language of the King James Version,
even when such language is technically incorrect. The fact that
these shortcomings seem to mirror the gaps in Smith's knowledge
is strong evidence that Smith was the sole author of the Book of
Mormon, not a collection of ancient American prophets.

Anachronistic Terms

There are a number of terms that the King James Version
introduced to the English world, which subsequently became part
of the Spiritual vocabulary.

We find that at least two of these terms appear in the Book of
Mormon as well. In John's gospel, Jesus leaves his disciples with
a promise of a coming indwelling of the Holy Spirit just before
his Passion. John 14:26 begins `But the Comforter, which is
the Holy Ghost...'. The Book of Mormon, in at least one
place, uses the same word for the Holy Spirit. Moroni 8:26 reads `...and
because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation
of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect
love...'.

The word that the King James committee translated as
`Comforter' is the Greek word `parakletos'. Again, the exact
meaning of this word is uncertain. Jerome left it untranslated in
the Vulgate - `paracletus autem Spiritus Sanctus...', and
it is variously translated in modern English Bibles (the New
International Version and the Revised Version both use
`counselor'). The word itself is constructed from two Greek
words, the preposition `para' meaning `with' and the verb `kaleo'
meaning `to call'. Thus, the meaning is clear enough, although
there is no direct English equivalent. It is quite telling that
the Book of Mormon uses a late English term for a Biblical
concept.

A second archaic word that seems to have crept into the Book
of Mormon is the word `charity'. This word appears in Paul's
famous treatise on Faith, Hope and Charity in I Corinthians 13.
In fact, the Greek word that is translated `charity' in the King
James Version is the word `agape'. This word is consistently
translated `love' elsewhere in the King James Version. The Book
of Mormon, too, contains much on Faith, Hope and Charity,
including a protracted quotation from I Corinthians 13. Moroni 7:45 reads `And
charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not
puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh
no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the
truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all
things, endureth all things.'

It is interesting that the Book of Mormon not only uses the
same archaic King James word for `love', but also that Smith felt
that he had to explain this fact. II Nephi 26:30 declares
that `...all men should have charity, which charity is love.'
Ether 12:34 reads `And
now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of
men is charity...' In the same chapter as the Corinthians
quotation, we find in Moroni
7:47`But charity is the pure love of Christ...'. Also
in Moroni 8:17 we find `And
I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love...'
Logically, this statement makes no sense, since `charity' and
`love' are actually the same word.

Variant Readings of the Textus Receptus

The King James Version was basically a revision of the earlier
works of Wycliffe and Tyndale. However, the translators did use a
specific Greek text for their revision, that of Erasmus, usually
called the Textus Receptus (Latin for `Received Text'). This is
basically a late text of the Majority family. Modern Biblical
criticism has produced a more accurate text, based mostly on
textual finds that postdate the King James Version. It can be
shown that where the King James Version differs from the
Alexandrian text, the Book of Mormon usually follows. This is
most evident in the text of Matthew that appears in III Nephi. However, it can
also be shown that the Book of Mormon quotes at least two texts
which are now considered to be spurious.

I John 5:7 reads `For there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one.' This verse has almost no Greek manuscript support,
and is generally considered to be a late interpolation. Legend
has it that Erasmus included it in his Greek text under duress.
Nevertheless, this text seems to have inspired one or two
quotations in the Book of Mormon. II Nephi 31:21 reads `...and
the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost, which is one God...'. Mormon 7:7 reads `...to
sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father,
and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God...'.

A similar problem affects Mormon chapter 9. Verses
22 through 24 read `For behold, thus said Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, unto his disciples who should tarry, yea, and also to
all his disciples, in the hearing of the multitude: Go ye into
all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; And he
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that
believeth not shall be damned; And these signs shall follow them
that believe--in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall
speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they
drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay
hands on the sick and they shall recover...' Similarly, Ether 4:18 reads `Therefore,
repent all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me, and believe in
my gospel, and be baptized in my name; for he that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned; and signs shall follow them that believe in my name.'

Both these passages are quotations from Mark 16, verses 15
through 18 - `And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my
name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new
tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the
sick, and they shall recover.'

The problem here is that these verses are part of the
so-called long ending of Mark, generally thought to be a late
addition to the Marcan text. Neither the Siniaticus nor the
Vaticanus, the two oldest Greek texts, have this ending. (The New
International Version has a note which reads `The most reliable
early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark
16:9-20'). If this is true, it is quite impossible for Jesus to
have spoken these words.

Conclusion

It is very evident that the Book of Mormon owes much to the
King James Version. Since this particular version of the Bible
was not translated until 1611, it means that the Book of Mormon
cannot be an ancient work as Joseph Smith claimed.